law applicable at the time the offence in question (armed robbery) was committed is the Tanzanian Penal Code of 1981 and the Jtlinimum Sentences Act of 1g72 as amended in 1989 and in 1994; and, consequenily, theApplicant,s allegation is unfounded. 74. The Court therefore holds that the atlegation of a violation with regard to the punishment imposed on the Applicant following his conviction for armed robbery is unfounded and, as such, dismisses the allegation. B. The allegation regarding the violation of Article 1 of the charter 75. ln the Application, it is alleged that the Respondent State has violated Article 1 of the Charter. The Respondent State, for its part, contends that all the rights of the Applicant have been respected. *** 76. Article 1 of the Charter provides that: "The Member States of the Organisation of African Unity, parties to the present Charter shall recognise the rights, duties and freedoms enshrined in the Charter and shall undertake to adopt legislative or other measures to give effect to them". 77. The Court has already found that the Respondent State has violated Article 7 (1) (c) of the Charter for having failed to provide the Applicant with legal assistance. consequently, the court reiterates its findingin Arex Thomas v. tJnited Repubtic of Tanzama, that: "... when the Courtfinds that any of the rights, duties and freedoms set out in the Charter are curtailed, violated or not being achieved, this necessarily means that the obligation set out under Article 1 of the Charter has not been complied with and has been violated.,'11 78. After having found that the Applicant was deprived of his right to free legal assistance in violation of Article 7(1)(c) of the Charter, the Court holds that the 1 r Alex Thomas v. Tanzanla Jud g ment. op. cit @-- 135 18 Zr-. ^rg